If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Before we all call Mendenhall a 'bust', let's remember that in year 1 he busted his shoulder. Year 2 he gained 930 yards on the ground at 4.1 YPC with 9 TD's in the mix. Year 3 was nearly 1,300 yards on the ground with 13 TD's & in Year 4, 1,100 yards on the ground with 7 TD's. Not only that, in that 3 year stretch he missed the sum total of 4 games, while carrying a massive share of the workload. Year 4 he simply hasn't gotten started all year through injury.

And that doesn't include his recieving yards.

All that in an Arians Offence.

He's NOT a bust. He's a very servicable RB.

But the anti-Mendenhall club should certainly continue this slanted attack on him.

Mendenhall's biggest crime as a Steeler, as far as Chadman can see, was that he didn't agree with celebrating the death of Bin Laden. His 'football crimes' are nit-picky.

I'll throw a wrench in the whole debate and say I don't think FWP or RM are/were very good feature backs. Both of their YPC is deceiving. A feature back can't get stuffed for 1 or 2 YPC on 10 runs in a row, then ramble for 40 on the 11th and be considered the feature back. That was both of their modes of operation and our offense sucked. I'll take Dwyer getting 3-4 yards a carry and rattling of a 15 or 20 harder here and there over that.

Who knows? What would Parker's numbers have looked like had he been the feature back during his rookie year, rather than barely getting to sniff the field? Aren't those essentially 16 games that could be discounted?

Then again, why is number of games played the decisive factor? Why not number of carries? Super Bowl performances? Number of thousand-yard-plus seasons in a row?

I know you generally can't stand to see low-round draft picks and undrafted FAs do well...I understand that.
But I don't see how you can make a good case that Rashard Mendenhall is a much better running back than Willie Parker was. Maybe he will play lights out for the next five years, and establish himself as the better back. To this point, he hasn't.

I have no idea what you are talking about..especially the part about me not standing low round draft picks and un-drafted FA's doing well. I am like the biggest draft geek on this board why would you ever think that about me? Sounds lame and out of the side of your neck, if you ask me. And it appears as if you really don't understand.

I never said anything about one be better than the other. My comment was I didn't think comparing their numbers (which is what the original post was), was fair because Parker has played many more games than Mendenhall (23).

I'll throw a wrench in the whole debate and say I don't think FWP or RM are/were very good feature backs. Both of their YPC is deceiving. A feature back can't get stuffed for 1 or 2 YPC on 10 runs in a row, then ramble for 40 on the 11th and be considered the feature back. That was both of their modes of operation and our offense sucked. I'll take Dwyer getting 3-4 yards a carry and rattling of a 15 or 20 harder here and there over that.

This, Chadman will agree with. While Parker & Mendenhall's stats will show them to be very effective RB's, in an offense like the Steelers, their style may not suit as an 'every down' type RB. Dwyer is certainly more the 3 yards & a cloud of dust-type that we have come to love. And, given that our offense is now, essentially, Ben- all that is needed in the running game is that it doesn't leave Ben in too many 3rd & long situations.

Dwyer & Redman will be a servicable RB duo. But they will never have the ability of a Mendenhall. And if Ben were to get injured, it's unlikely you can expect Dwyer/Redman to produce game-winning individual moments. Mendenhall, and before him, Parker had/have that ability.

Was Mendenhall a 1st round talent? Yes.

Was he what Steelers fans expected? No.

Has he failed/flopped/been a bust? No. He's just not the type of RB we want or, in many cases, need.

I have no idea what you are talking about..especially the part about me not standing low round draft picks and un-drafted FA's doing well. I am like the biggest draft geek on this board why would you ever think that about me? Sounds lame and out of the side of your neck, if you ask me. And it appears as if you really don't understand.

I never said anything about one be better than the other. My comment was I didn't think comparing their numbers (which is what the original post was), was fair because Parker has played many more games than Mendenhall (23).

Get it now?

OK, I will try to write in words that are easier to understand.

You are saying that it's unfair to compare Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall because RM played in fewer games than WP.

You say that if RM had played in the same number of games as WP, RM would have more yards, and better statistics.

I call bull.

Over the course of his career, WP carried the ball 1253 times for 5378 yards. He averaged 4.3 yards per carry, and 68.1 yards per game.

Over the course of his career, RM carried the ball 847 times for 3480 yards. He averaged 4.1 ypc, and 63.3 yards per game.

Do the math. An equal number of games does not give RM more yards than WP. Sorry.

RM does have more touchdowns, 29 to 24. But for WPs first two years here, we had a guy named Jerome Bettis on the roster, who was getting the bulk of the opportunities when we got close to the goal line. If we'd had a Bettis playing for two of RMs years, he might have a few less TDs as well.

I believe the stats show that RM was a better receiver--but not by much. WP had 84 receptions over his career, an average of 1.1 per game, for 697 yards. RM has had 75, an average of 1.4 per game, for 660 yards.

As far as games missed due to injury--you seem to think that gives WP an unfair advantage. It could be argued that it shows he was more durable than RM.

Did the Lions offense operate well with Barry Sanders? Did they win a conference championship, Superbowl? No, Barry Sanders got a lot of yardage by games end and they punted a lot between his 80 yard runs.

Did the Lions offense operate well with Barry Sanders? Did they win a conference championship, Superbowl? No, Barry Sanders got a lot of yardage by games end and they punted a lot between his 80 yard runs.

That is the point. The Lions offense still wasn't that good with one of the fastest speed backs as a feature back. You cannot have a consistant offense when your RB gets 1 or 2 yards a carry then rips off a 50 yarder, ends with 100 yards. You need a chain mover that can rip off the occasional 20 yard gallop like Dwyer vs. the Ravens running for 16 on a TD run.

You are saying that it's unfair to compare Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall because RM played in fewer games than WP.

You say that if RM had played in the same number of games as WP, RM would have more yards, and better statistics.

I call bull.

Over the course of his career, WP carried the ball 1253 times for 5378 yards. He averaged 4.3 yards per carry, and 68.1 yards per game.

Over the course of his career, RM carried the ball 847 times for 3480 yards. He averaged 4.1 ypc, and 63.3 yards per game.

Do the math. An equal number of games does not give RM more yards than WP. Sorry.

RM does have more touchdowns, 29 to 24. But for WPs first two years here, we had a guy named Jerome Bettis on the roster, who was getting the bulk of the opportunities when we got close to the goal line. If we'd had a Bettis playing for two of RMs years, he might have a few less TDs as well.

I believe the stats show that RM was a better receiver--but not by much. WP had 84 receptions over his career, an average of 1.1 per game, for 697 yards. RM has had 75, an average of 1.4 per game, for 660 yards.

As far as games missed due to injury--you seem to think that gives WP an unfair advantage. It could be argued that it shows he was more durable than RM.

In at least one category, RM is far ahead of WP: boneheaded tweets.

Hey Bradshaw...you may want to go back and read the original post here. There wasnt any mention of yards per game or yards per rushing attempt. What I had to say pertained to the original post. There were more stats given than just rushing stats. But I get it.....